(January 21, 2010 at 9:25 am)leo-rcc Wrote: If I were a strong atheist I would argue that the null hypothesis would be that something does not exist until evidence that something does exist comes along. I would feel no need to actively look for evidence against a thing to claim its non existence.
leo-rcc just out of interest have you ever had any formal training in the sciences, logic or philosophy? The clumsy way you have phrased that suggests its been a while since you've done undergraduate level mathematics, or you have never had any formal training at university level (unless you learn about the null hypothesis at highschool or some other post-secondary institution). Just curious that's all.